I have had (and still have) many Leupolds (20+++) over the last 30 years and have never had a problem with a single one of them.
I have been extremely pleased with all of them and have never had to send one back for repair (Vari-X II's, VX-I, up through VX-IIIi's, but nothing of "higher" quality).
I've never experienced the need to have a scope of a higher grade (I also have lower end-Zeiss, a "stupid" expensive Nightforce that I got on a trade, "quality" Burris scopes, one Vortex that was so disappointing that I got rid of it immediately, American-made older Weavers (and newer imports), American-made Redfield's, Sightrons, Bushnells, pretty-expensive Nikons, Truglo's, etc.)
My son, however, is convinced that he has to buy a Nightforce, Trijicon or an SWFA scope to have a scope that is strong enough and tough enough to endure very rigorous hunting. Where a 2 -foot drop will render the scope useless (mountain goats, Alaska, deep-Africa, etc.).
Is he correct about the ruggedness of these optics?
Do I need to underscore the rigidity of the mountings, or are less "rugged" scopes (maybe even my precious Leupolds), need to be considered somewhat delicate?
I have always considered optical quality as the reason to spend big-money on rifle scopes (Swarovski, Zeiss, S&B, etc.).
He's about to put a 2-pound scope on a Tikka T3X lite, because of his perceived (and documented by the "internet" of course) that if he doesn't, it won't survive a twelve inch fall.
Apparently, "**NOT**PERMITTED**" is where all the experts reside now...